He combined with the boldest independence a strong reverence for the historical faith. He
derives from the unbroken tradition of the church an argument against the Zwinglians for the real
presence in the eucharist; and says, in a letter to Albrecht, Margrave of Brandenburg and Duke of
Prussia (April, 1532, after Zwingli’s death): "The testimony of the entire holy Christian church
(even without any other proof) should be sufficient for us to abide by this article, and to listen to
no sectaries against it. For it is dangerous and terrible (gefährlich und erschrecklich) to hear or
believe any thing against the unanimous testimony, faith, and doctrine of the entire holy Christian
church as held from the beginning for now over fifteen hundred years in all the world. ... To deny
such testimony is virtually to condemn not only the holy Christian church as a damned heretic, but
even Christ himself, with all his apostles and prophets, who have founded this article, ’I believe a
holy Christian church,’ as solemnly affirmed by Christ when he promised, ’Behold, I am with you
all the days, even to the end of the world’ (Matt. 28:20), and by St. Paul when he says, ’The church
of God is the pillar and ground of the truth’ (1 Tim. 3:15)."^694
A Roman controversialist could not lay more stress on tradition than Luther does in this
passage. But tradition, at least from the sixth to the sixteenth century, strongly favors the belief in
transubstantiation, and the sacrifice of the mass, both of which he rejected. And if the same test
should be applied to his doctrine of solifidian justification, it would be difficult to support it by
patristic or scholastic tradition, which makes no distinction between justification and sanctification,
and lays as much stress on good works as on faith. He felt it himself, that on this vital point, not
even Augustin was on his side. His doctrine can be vindicated only as a new interpretation of St.
Paul in advance of the previous understanding.
Calvin, if we may here anticipate his views as expounded in the first chapters of the fourth
book of his "Institutes of the Christian Religion," likewise clearly distinguishes between the visible
and invisible church,^695 and in the visible church again between the true evangelical church and
the false papal church, which he assails as unmercifully as Luther; yet he also admits that the Roman
communion, notwithstanding the antichristian character of the papacy, yea, for the very reason that
Antichrist sits "in the temple of God," remains a church with the Scriptures and valid Christian
ordinances.^696 So the Jewish synagogue under Caiaphas retained the law and the prophets, the rites
and ceremonies, of the theocracy.
The Westminster Confession implies the same theory, and supports it by the same
questionable exegesis of 2 Thess. 2:3 sqq. and Rev. 13:1–8.^697
inimicorum suorum; item, Antichristus sedet in templo Dei, et Satan adest in medio filiorum Dei ... Manet in romana urbe quamquam
Sodoma et Gomorra pejore baptismus, sacramentum, vox et textus evangelii, sacra scriptura, ministeria, nomen Christi, nomen Dei."(^694) De Wette, Briefe, IV. 354.
(^695) Lib. IV., c. i., §§ 4 and 7. He speaks most eloquently of the ecclesia visibilis, as our mother in whose womb we are conceived to
enter into spiritual life.
(^696) Lib. IV., c. ii., § 12: "Antichristum in templo Dei sessurum praedixerunt Daniel et Paulus (Dan. 9:27; 2 Thess. 2:4): illius scelerati
et abominandi regni ducem et antesignanum, apud nos facimus Romanum Pontificem. Quod sedes ejus in templo Dei collocatur, ita
innuitur, tale fore ejus regnum quod nec Christi nec ecclesiae nomen aboleat. Hinc igitur patet nos minime negare, quin sub ejus quoque
tyrannide ecclesiae maneant: sed quas sacrilega impietate profanarit, quas immani dominatione afflixerit, quas malis et exitialibus
doctrinis, ceu venenatis potionibus, corruperit, et propemodum enecarit, in quibus semisepultus lateat Christus, obrutum Evangelium,
profligata pietas, cultus Dei fere abolitus: in quibus denique omnia sic sint conturbata, ut Babylonis potius quam civitatis Dei sanctae
facies illic appareat." Comp. IV., 7, § 25; and Calvin’s commentary on 2 Thess. 2:3.
(^697) Ch. XXV. 6: "The Pope of Rome ... is that Antichrist, that man of sin and perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ
and all that is called God." And yet there are American divines who derive from this passage the very opposite conclusion; namely, that
the Roman Church is no church at all, and that all her ordinances are invalid. An attempt to sanction this conclusion was made at the
General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church at Cincinnati in 1885, but failed. The Westminster Confession never calls the Roman